Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like Rented Tritium keeps saying, the figure of 100,000,000 is incredibly misleading and presented as such by people with political motives.

The article states that the trip COULD cost between 60-100 million, but again, how many of these costs would have been incurred regardless is debatable to a certain extent.

Whether or not you think these trips are worth it, I tend to think they are not, it's important to approach these bald figures with skepticism.

It's likely to have been too expensive and it almost assuredly won't pay for itself, but I'm betting on it actually costing quite a bit less than 100m.

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And what about the millions upon millions that are wasted by congress debating stupid laws, the millions that go into the military. But no everyone complains about 1 trip.
So what? the president is just supposed to sit around and not talk to the rest of the world?

The Billions that go into the military largely as a whole goes back into our economy, while providing a practical function for our nation, such as keeping it safe.

The 100 million that the Obama's spent on this trip is going to accomplish nothing that couldn't have been handled with a video conference.

It probably also would have eased the furlough that the military is suffering right now. Our civilian employees are taking a pretty massive cut in pay, and our uniformed members are having to work a lot of extra shifts to make up for the short falled man hours. I'm sure that the Obama family trip to Africa is more important though. There is also the fact that a massive amount of USAF assets had to be redirected to handle this trip, when they could have been used for things like making the withdrawel from Afghanistan go smoother.

Except that the majority of the cost is military related....so by your argument, it's going back into our economy.... You know, I say that and I have to think about all of the pay that's going to be wasted by the involved military personnel on their next shore leave so I take back the part about it helping our economy.

Considering the majority of the military involved in this is AF, and not Navy, your shore leave comment means nothing.

 djones520 wrote:
Considering the majority of the military involved in this is AF, and not Navy, your shore leave comment means nothing.

Recent secret service agents' antics prove you wrong.

 agnosto wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Considering the majority of the military involved in this is AF, and not Navy, your shore leave comment means nothing.

Recent secret service agents' antics prove you wrong.

Exalted.

 agnosto wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Considering the majority of the military involved in this is AF, and not Navy, your shore leave comment means nothing.

Recent secret service agents' antics prove you wrong.

LOOOOOL

Obama’s trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100 million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years, according to one person familiar with the journey, who was not authorized to speak for attribution.

Truly a definitive, unambiguous statement.

 sourclams wrote:

But flash back to four months ago when school children were shut out of the White House because tours cost $16,000/day for additional security.

It's pretty specious to simultaneously claim CANNOT POSSIBLY SEQUESTER CUTS while playing one gak load of golf on the taxpayer's dime and going on family trips to every-damn-where.

An appearance by the President of the United States in a foreign country is not equivalent to the appearance of a child in the White House.

Moreover, do you honestly think this was a vacation?

I have an anonymous source, at least as reputable as the anonymous source quoted in this article, that said the whole trip only cost $300; and hell, when you get that many frequent flier miles, it practically made money.

 djones520 wrote:
The Billions that go into the military largely as a whole goes back into our economy, while providing a practical function for our nation, such as keeping it safe.

I suppose if I was the recipient of the largest socialist program in the world, I'd want to delude myself too about how I "keep America safe". Seriously, it's sort of amazing people can say stuff like this with a straight face in 2013.

To the previous point, look guys! We're dumping money into our economy! Yay!

 dogma wrote:

An appearance by the President of the United States in a foreign country is not equivalent to the appearance of a child in the White House.

Just name the big ticket advantages that this trip will have in store for America. We got a promise of 'electricity' for African cities which, to the US, is little more than up-front cost and Obama got a photo op with Mandela.

 sourclams wrote:

If Africa was going to be a priority, then this is awfully late to the party for little/no tangible gain.

AFRICOM was founded in 2007.

Shocking though it may be, the priorities of the United States of America extend beyond Presidencies.

 sourclams wrote:

Just name the big ticket advantages that this trip will have in store for America.

When did less than 100 million USD become "big ticket" for an economy worth 15 trillion USD?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The Washington Post wrote:

...the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past...

And I didn't like those either!

I believe the issue at hand is that we're in this "financial crisis" and people are being given mandatory unpaid vacation days because of the straits the government is apparently in with it's lack of money.

People like me! I have one coming on the 5th. I wanna go to Africa

I don't believe that he shouldn't go anywhere at all but when we are told we need about 77 million a day to take away a furlough day one can do the math....

1. When did Secret Service become a US military branch? I can see why the Coast Guard fall under DHS. Granted a few do go to Afghanistan...RC South...they have a huge lake down there

2. I can say I protect America with a straight face and with seriousness. From my view point. I rather have them mostly focus in fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan instead focusing on hitting us somewhere else on Mainland US. After ten years though I say let the Darkside (SpecOps) take over and drone strike them

3. Think the 100mil is total. The Safarie trip got cancel due to the fact if I remember recently was there would be sniper teams involve on the Safarie trip. If I can't shoot a lion..cheetah..oh hell a big cat...then no one else can legaly. Unless the Cat in my backyard.

4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa? Didn't Bono from U2 praise Bush for that recently?

5. Lost my chain of thought

 Jihadin wrote:
4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa? Didn't Bono from U2 praise Bush for that recently?

Yes, also so did Obama on this trip. Bush doesn't really get credit enough for the program, which has saved the lives of millions.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I believe the issue at hand is that we're in this "financial crisis" and people are being given mandatory unpaid vacation days because of the straits the government is apparently in with it's lack of money.

The 'issue at hand' is a load of made up, pundit driven nonsense with no relation to the real world. The government doesn't 'lack money'. There is nothing curtailing expenditure other than the political belief that you have to curtail expenditure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The real cost of the trip might still be high, but it's probably not ACTUALLY 100 million in practice. Accounting is complicated.

Absolutely.

Or, to put it another way, accounting should be pretty simple, but people lie, and they use lies buried in accounting to tell those lies, and so accounting becomes complicated.

And this is a classic example. There isn't 60 to 100 million in overtime, fuel and bullet proof glass being used up here. There is 60 to 100 million in salaries and capital wear and tear on navy ship so those boats can be in proximity to the president... ships that would otherwise use up 60 to 100 million doing whatever else they'd be doing in the region.

One could argue that Obama inherited this crisis and the budget defecit from his predecessor. But at least he is trying to fix some of the problem. The government in my country is slowly pushing it onto the backs of my generation instead of fixing it with the generation that was somewhat responsible. Either way sometimes you have to suffer budget cuts, but its the choice between you or your children's generation mostly.

But I understand the sentiment, some (me included) feel the same way about the spending of 'our' royal family.

 sebster wrote:
There is 60 to 100 million in salaries and capital wear and tear on navy ship so those boats can be in proximity to the president... ships that would otherwise use up 60 to 100 million doing whatever else they'd be doing in the region.

My anonymous source say's they're building a special carrier, the USS Socialism, which is shaped like a mosque, uses up almost all of the money being allocated to the trip, is forged wholly from the AR-15s the ATF seized from taxpayers and smelted; and which will then be scuttled the moment the President leaves Africa. So, I don't know where you heard the crazy mumbo-jumbo you're talking, but it's probably lies from the liberal media.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Ya so? He's a citizen of the United States, why does he get to avoid the backscatter machine and friendly TSA groping? Are you saying that he should get preferential treatment just because he's the President? HOGWASH AND FLIM FLAM BOY!

If Obama got randomly selected for a pat down, do you think he'd claim it was racial profiling?

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
There is 60 to 100 million in salaries and capital wear and tear on navy ship so those boats can be in proximity to the president... ships that would otherwise use up 60 to 100 million doing whatever else they'd be doing in the region.

My anonymous source say's they're building a special carrier, the USS Socialism, which is shaped like a mosque, uses up almost all of the money being allocated to the trip, and which will then be scuttled the moment the President leaves Africa. So, I don't know where you heard the crazy mumbo-jumbo you're talking, but it's probably lies from the liberal media.

Its true in part, most of these costs include maintenance costs which would have been incurred either way. Other part of the cost is transporting, providing security and paying the salaries of people involved. Obama could quite possibly have done it with about +/- $10k for just his family, but he wouldnt be making a return trip most likely.

 agnosto wrote:
Except that the majority of the cost is military related....so by your argument, it's going back into our economy.... You know, I say that and I have to think about all of the pay that's going to be wasted by the involved military personnel on their next shore leave so I take back the part about it helping our economy.

"Holy gak I'm looking forward to liberty in Africa," said no US sailor ever.

 djones520 wrote:
The Billions that go into the military largely as a whole goes back into our economy, while providing a practical function for our nation, such as keeping it safe.

The 100 million that the Obama's spent on this trip is going to accomplish nothing that couldn't have been handled with a video conference.

Yeah, the only thing keeping your nation safe is that 7th carrier group. Uh huh. Whereas face to face diplomacy and having a presence in the rest of the world, well that isn't a key element of soft power at all.

And money spent on military assets flows back in to the economy in that wonderful multiplier effect. But money spent on stuff you don't like, like presidential trips, well that money just disappears entirely without creating jobs or being respent in the economy. And the reason the effect is so different is through the magic of really, really not thinking about this at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa? Didn't Bono from U2 praise Bush for that recently?

Bono was praising Bush for that while Bush was still President. And I'm pretty sure he praised Bush for his work in bringing forward debt forgiveness schemes to African nations.

One of the strangest things about the perception of Bush post-presidency - from both sides - is the inability to recognise that he did more or less exactly what you'd expect a modern evangelical President would do. Especially on Africa, because evangelicals have never given up the missionary spirit when it comes to Africa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its true in part, most of these costs include maintenance costs which would have been incurred either way. Other part of the cost is transporting, providing security and paying the salaries of people involved. Obama could quite possibly have done it with about +/- $10k for just his family, but he wouldnt be making a return trip most likely.

But the point is those costs would be incurred anyway. If the Secret Service and naval flotilla weren't being used to provide protection for the president, those people would still be getting paid.

It's like in one of my first jobs, as an accountant for a small town local government. Needing to deal with a budgeted blackhole of about $150,000, the town President wanted to cut road maintenance. It took me about an hour of explaining to get him to realise that if we didn't do the roads maintenance we'd still have to pay the roads crew.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa? Didn't Bono from U2 praise Bush for that recently?

Yes, also so did Obama on this trip. Bush doesn't really get credit enough for the program, which has saved the lives of millions.

That's one thing you can of Bush despite his flaws...

He's a classy, humble Texas dude.

Back on topic... guys, is this really worth trying to ding Obama? All modern Prez do this... o.O

Focus! FOCUS!

IRS!

PRISM!

Benghazi!

All this griping about O's Africa trip seems just weaksauce.

 whembly wrote:
He's a classy, humble Texas dude.

The only part of that sentence that people would probably agree on is that he does indeed live in Texas.

 Jihadin wrote:

4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa?

Yes, and it is without doubt the best thing he's done in his entire life. It saved literally millions of lives. As far as presidential legacy programs go, it was a slam dunk and I really don't like the guy.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He's a classy, humble Texas dude.

The only part of that sentence that people would probably agree on is that he does indeed live in Texas.

Seriously?

That man get criticised up and down the political sphere... and he doesn't defend himself.

Obama fething brutalized bush during his campaign... certain news network interviewing Bush would ask him about that... his reply? "Pshaw... that's politics".

He especially make efforts to comfort the troops privately...

So... go ahead and ding the man. It'll be empty in the face of these things.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

4. Didn't Bush push a major HIV/Aid awareness program in Africa?

Yes, and it is without doubt the best thing he's done in his entire life. It saved literally millions of lives. As far as presidential legacy programs go, it was a slam dunk and I really don't like the guy.

Exactly.

Thats not correct. No Texan is humble. We don't have to be.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not correct. No Texan is humble. We don't have to be.

ha! Touche!

Regardless... Obama's trip to me is much ado about nuthin.

Do you really think you can get universal agreement that Bush is 'humble and classy'? I'm not even criticizing his administration or him, I just think that 'That's one thing you can [say] of Bush despite his flaws...He's a classy, humble Texas dude.' is a absolutely ridiculous statement.

Ignoring that, it could easily be argued that an ex-President that was villified and hated while in office not responding to attacks on his administration during an election was more pragmatic than classy.

I think that as an actual person he probably is. Most presidents have excellent social skills. If you met him at a party, you would find him friendly, polite and probably charming.

Oh I think he's humble for a Texan.

"Miss me yet?"
-Miss your dad anyway.